Support NeoGAF

[WayneMorse]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with Bernie Sanders on anything. I hope he runs in the primary.

He should, even if he doesn't get the nomination as long as he can get his message out and inspire the masses it will be a good thing. I mean, Ron Paul failed at getting the nomination in 2008 and his brand of extreme right conservatism dominated the GOP after 2009. It's possible to alter the message without actually winning a primary/election.

Hopefully at least we'll get an advocate for single payer and workers rights in 2016.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Chait on ryan

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/new-paul-ryan-is-all-about-heart.html

 

[WayneMorse]

I don't think it could be overstated just how horribly racist and disgusting this picture is.

Paul Ryan is now some white savior? Really?

 

[zero shift]

Am I the only one who always confuses Bernie Sanders with Barney Frank a lot?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is introducing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He's a fucking nutter like the rest of them, so it's surprising that he's making the first move on this one.

Of course it doesn't grant citizenship to adult immigrants, just giving them a legal status - but it does give citizenship to children, which I'm sure is a bridge too far for most wingnuts.

I kind of hope it happens just to see the right-wing meltdown. In conjunction with giving up on repealing Obamacare, I'd be very surprised if Boehner is Speaker this time next year.

 

[WayneMorse]

Does legal status grant them voting rights?

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think it could be overstated just how horribly racist and disgusting this picture is.

Paul Ryan is now some white savior? Really?

I think you are reading too much into it.

 

[speculawyer]

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is introducing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He's a fucking nutter like the rest of them, so it's surprising that he's making the first move on this one.

Of course it doesn't grant citizenship to adult immigrants, just giving them a legal status - but it does give citizenship to children, which I'm sure is a bridge too far for most wingnuts.

I kind of hope it happens just to see the right-wing meltdown. In conjunction with giving up on repealing Obamacare, I'd be very surprised if Boehner is Speaker this time next year.

Uh...the constitution gives citizenship to everyone born in the USA no matter where their parents are from. These are the so called anchor babies. This is something in the constitution that they would love to change.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Uh...the constitution gives citizenship to everyone born in the USA no matter where their parents are from. These are the so called anchor babies. This is something in the constitution that they would love to change.

Children who were brought here by their parents, not children who were born here. Essentially what the Dream Act is.

 

[kehs]

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is introducing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He's a fucking nutter like the rest of them, so it's surprising that he's making the first move on this one.

Of course it doesn't grant citizenship to adult immigrants, just giving them a legal status - but it does give citizenship to children, which I'm sure is a bridge too far for most wingnuts.

I kind of hope it happens just to see the right-wing meltdown. In conjunction with giving up on repealing Obamacare, I'd be very surprised if Boehner is Speaker this time next year.

"Well Republicans need to start talking about it. I’m part of a majority party in the largest state that’s still majority Republican, and I want to keep it that way. My little boy is 8-years-old. He’s in the public schools in Ennis, Texas, and half of his class is Hispanic and his two best friends are Hispanic. They start everyday raising their hand and Pledging Allegiance to the American flag and then the Texas flag. They’re Americans, and we need to acknowledge that and find a way for those who wish to be part of the American dream an opportunity to make them legal."

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/...ntroduce-major-immigration-reform-bill-006631


I know how he wants to come off, but that comes off so bad..."dark? probably illegal!"

 

[Black Mamba]

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) defended the controversial enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding this weekend, and implied that the practice would still be commonplace “if I were in charge.”

“They obviously have information on plots to carry out Jihad,” she said at the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting on Saturday evening, referring to prisoners. "Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ng-is-how-we-baptize-terrorists#ixzz30DpmVmAu

Some religious groups are not happy about her comments. lol, she finally managed to piss off some fundies.

 

[rocketknight]

There was an amicus brief filed in Schuette that touches on this:

Thanks so much, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Am I the only one who always confuses Bernie Sanders with Barney Frank a lot?

Nope!

 

[benjipwns]

It's the only reason they or anyone else even believes in this Randianism themselves.

Paul Ryan is wasting his time if he thinks he's going to get anyone to believe in Randian theories using different reasonings.

Hahaha, no not at all.

During the election, Chris Hayes revealed a video of Ryan on the House floor back in 2001 or 2002 where the douche was actually arguing FOR increased spending (as well as lowering taxes, to be fair) to help get us out of the recession from the dot com bubble bursting. The guy made a good an argument as any Keynesian ever did.

Ryan doesn't actually believe his shitty Ayn Rand policies will actually work, he just simply likes them.

As bad as the Rand cult is, they're better than Ryan. He like most of the GOP just likes the rhetoric. The only part of Objectivism they're probably fully on board with is the wing that thinks it's America's duty to export democracy via nuclear fallout.

 

[RustyNails]

Doom

WASHINGTON -- Attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act continue to shift in the law’s favor, even in Republican-held congressional districts, a new poll released Monday by a Democratic firm shows.

The poll, which was conducted by Democracy Corps in battleground congressional districts and shared in advance with The Huffington Post, shows 52 percent of respondents want to “implement and fix” the 2010 health care reform law versus 42 percent who want to “repeal and replace” it. Those numbers were 49 percent to 45 percent, respectively, in the firm's December poll.

The favorable trend toward Obamacare has been witnessed not just in Democratic districts but also in Republican districts.

According to the findings, 43 percent of respondents in districts held by a Republican member of Congress now say they oppose the health care law because it “goes too far.” That number was 48 percent in December. Opponents still outnumber the 41 percent who say they favor the law. However, Democracy Corps also registers 9 percent of respondents in Republican districts who say they oppose the law because it does not go far enough, a group that ostensibly includes a chunk of voters who wanted a more liberal piece of legislation. (How big that chunk is, is unclear.)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is introducing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He's a fucking nutter like the rest of them, so it's surprising that he's making the first move on this one.

Of course it doesn't grant citizenship to adult immigrants, just giving them a legal status - but it does give citizenship to children, which I'm sure is a bridge too far for most wingnuts.

I kind of hope it happens just to see the right-wing meltdown. In conjunction with giving up on repealing Obamacare, I'd be very surprised if Boehner is Speaker this time next year.

Just came to post this. Even Kos is on board with it, wow. As he pointed out, democrats could simply change it to legalization after they take control of the House in the future.

Barton is not a RINO by any stretch of the imagination, and the fact that he comes from a border state makes this even more impressive. I can't help but think this process will be shit canned - either due to him abandoning his own bill Rubio style, or massive GOP protests. I just don't believe Obama will sign an immigration bill during his presidency.

I really don't see why Boehner thinks this is a good idea. Unless the idea is to wait until the filing process is over so tea party people can't jump into races? Or is this all one big scam that will implode so they can blame Obama for destroying bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Just came to post this. Even Kos is on board with it, wow. As he pointed out, democrats could simply change it to legalization after they take control of the House in the future.

Barton is not a RINO by any stretch of the imagination, and the fact that he comes from a border state makes this even more impressive. I can't help but think this process will be shit canned - either due to him abandoning his own bill Rubio style, or massive GOP protests. I just don't believe Obama will sign an immigration bill during his presidency.

I really don't see why Boehner thinks this is a good idea. Unless the idea is to wait until the filing process is over so tea party people can't jump into races? Or is this all one big scam that will implode so they can blame Obama for destroying bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform.

Yeah I don't really think it has much of a chance, but I think they'll try. McMorris-Rodgers said she wants a bill by August which seems oddly specific.

I think the party head honchos want to deal with this so Jeb or whoever can run for presidency without immigration being a problem. It's not easy to just prop up a Spanish speaking candidate and expect to win if your party is stonewalling legislation simultaneously, best to endure whatever wrath from the GOP electorate now than in 2016.

 

[PhoenixDark]

you're putting Diablos to shame right now, there's no way Merkley will lose his seat

Oregon wasted a quarter of a billion dollar in tax payer money on an Obamacare site that doesn't work. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, he is vulnerable to the right type of candidate.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It's interesting because it sounds like he really genuinely is interested in understanding poverty and in talking about how to fix it. But given his Randian predilections, I'm not convinced we'll see any result from this but "churches need to do better, and we need to cut welfare so people are motivated to get jobs." Business as usual, in other words.

Yeah, I'm going to keep my fingers crossed, but I'm not holding out for him to change anything. It's really rare to see someone actually change their mind about something, especially a person that famous and that well-paid for believing in it. But if anything could make a person, especially a compassionate person, change their mind about solutions to poverty, I'd hope that talking to those suffering under it could catalyze such a change. The quote in that article about people "not wanting to take a job if it only pays $7 and hour" or something like that is a good example. It's hard to look at that and think of a solution that would satisfy that person and Ryan's philosophy. Just imagine living in a world where Paul Ryan had a fundamental shift in philosophy after something like this. It's nice to dream.

Am I the only one who always confuses Bernie Sanders with Barney Frank a lot?

Glad I'm not the only one.

 

[Jack Remington]

Toyota is moving its sales headquarters from California to Texas. Conservative crowing should be fairly insufferable. Texas miracle continues.

http://www.businessinsider.com/toyota-is-moving-its-us-headquarters-from-california-to-texas-2014-4

Apparently tax incentives were involved.

 

[Dram]

So since Jim Matheson is retiring, what are the chances that Mia Love will win?

 

[kehs]

Toyota is moving its sales headquarters from California to Texas. Conservative crowing should be fairly insufferable. Texas miracle continues.

http://www.businessinsider.com/toyota-is-moving-its-us-headquarters-from-california-to-texas-2014-4

Apparently tax incentives were involved.

I bet they put the pedal to the metal to get this deal done.

 

[Jack Remington]

Perry has been recruiting California-based companies very actively over the past year or so. I really hate this zero-sum shit.

 

[WayneMorse]

So since Jim Matheson is retiring, what are the chances that Mia Love will win?

Considering Romney won the district by 30% in 2012, I'd say they're pretty good.

 

[empty vessel]

Perry has been recruiting California-based companies very actively over the past year or so. I really hate this zero-sum shit.

It's one (big) reason why federalism is stupid.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's one (big) reason why federalism is stupid.

You spelled "brilliant" wrong.

 

[Chichikov]

You spelled "brilliant" wrong.

You can argue for the merit of federalism, but how one state poaching other state's jobs in a race to the bottom of taxation is a good thing?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Considering Romney won the district by 30% in 2012, I'd say they're pretty good.

I bet Matheson's internals had him losing. He obviously has statewide ambitions and it'd look bad for him to get defeated now.

 

[Jack Remington]

Yes, it's brilliant. Ultimately the working class can't have nice things because anything that improves their lot is an "onerous burden" on businesses.

Case in point, mandatory sick leave should be a universal policy, right?

SACRAMENTO — Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez has introduced legislation that would require all California businesses to provide paid sick leave for their employees, saying it will help ease the tough choice many low-wage workers must make between losing pay by staying home or going to work and risking infecting others.

The measure has drawn fierce resistance from the business community, which argues that mandatory sick leave will drive up costs and force many companies to think twice before hiring.

But since not every state does it, the states that do are "anti-business." The business community can spin it as a bad thing because they can play California off against the "business friendly" states.

I really fucking hate the idea of states having to compete on making things more difficult for their working class.

The whole thing is even more fucking stupid since when a company relocates from one state to another, no net jobs are created.

 

[WayneMorse]

I bet Matheson's internals had him losing. He obviously has statewide ambitions and it'd look bad for him to get defeated now.

The entire Utah Democratic Party is built around Matheson sadly, it's non existant outside of Salt Lake City from what I've read.

But I wonder how crazy Mia Love has to be to lose in the +30 Romney district.

edit: wow just read her wiki page and she said the first she would do in Congress is to get rid of the Congressional Black Caucus. So positive!

 

[HyperionX]

Toyota is moving its sales headquarters from California to Texas. Conservative crowing should be fairly insufferable. Texas miracle continues.

http://www.businessinsider.com/toyota-is-moving-its-us-headquarters-from-california-to-texas-2014-4

Apparently tax incentives were involved.

Reminds me of when the Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago in 2001. Lots of tax incentives involved back then too. While the company might have saved some money when you run the math, the thing was, Boeing at the time badly needed real leadership due to the rise of Airbus and all of the sales they were losing, not more money. As a result, for the next decade or so they lurched from one disaster to another. The problem was that when you move the HQ, many people didn't go with the company, and they lost a huge amount of experience in the managerial ranks and leadership became sorely lacking just when they needed it the most. No surprise, Boeing totally lost its way for a long time afterwards.

I'm curious as to how much Toyota is going to parallel Boeing going forward, seeing how they just managed to get over their unintentionally acceleration problem. If there are any more unaddressed problems at Toyota that require leadership, they may ultimately wish that they kept their existing management team instead of losing most of them. The last they need is to convince the public that the company is just about making a buck and nothing more.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sarah Palin comments get borring. Ben Shapiro's idiocy? Never

 

[Metaphoreus]

You can argue for the merit of federalism, but how one state poaching other state's jobs in a race to the bottom of taxation is a good thing?

I don't view the question from the states' perspective. I also don't view the question from the perspective of those who want the power to compel others to behave in a way those others would rather not. Instead, I view it from the perspective of those others. For them, it is good that they are able to escape the jurisdiction of a government whose policies they dislike.

The freedom to leave is an important--though underappreciated--check on government power. And it's a check that's in our hands.

Yes, it's brilliant. Ultimately the working class can't have nice things because anything that improves their lot is an "onerous burden" on businesses.

I also don't view it from the perspective of a particular class. But it certainly seems beneficial to the Texas workers who will gain jobs from this move that Toyota is making the move.

Case in point, mandatory sick leave should be a universal policy, right?

No. If Texans (for instance) don't want a government that imposes such a requirement, I see no reason to force that on them. A state that wants to impose a policy on those subject to its jurisdiction should do so after weighing the potential costs (including people moving out) and benefits (including people moving in) of doing so. And then, they should incur those costs and reap those benefits. There's no reason to make it easier on some states to impose a desired policy on their own residents by forcing other states to impose an undesired policy on their residents. (And it doesn't matter whether the policy is imposed by the states or by the federal government--the outcome is the same.)

The whole thing is even more fucking stupid since when a company relocates from one state to another, no net jobs are created.

I don't think you can say that as a general matter. It's dependent on a variety of factors unique to each individual business' move.

EDIT:

Sarah Palin comments get borring. Ben Shapiro's idiocy? Never

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmW7rw-CUAAfOVO.png

In the interests of comity, I have to say I agree with you. Plus he looks like a total douche. And, if I'm remembering correcting, he also sounds like a total douche.

 

[kehs]

They sure are perverting what "thought crime" really means.

 

[Oblivion]

Has this been posted? Bundy actually admits there may be a possibility that he's in fact a welfare queen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6zpiHkK7Tg

But he says it's okay because he's providing service or something. And also the federal government has no right to own land in states.

The whole thing is even more fucking stupid since when a company relocates from one state to another, no net jobs are created.

Wrong!

Say California's minimum wage is $8.00/hr and Texas' is $4.00/hr. A company can then hire double the amount of people in Texas as they could in Cali. And if the minimum wage is even lower, you can higher even more people!

Liberal economics destroyed once again.

 

[Jack Remington]

If 1000 jobs that pay $9/hr are moved to a state where the company can pay $7/hr, total utility in the system is lower.

This is also a very game theory-esque situation. The federal government in this case can essentially force cooperation to ensure a better outcome for more people.

I mean, you get where the idea of the "race to the bottom" comes from, right? People on average in all states can be made worse off by moves that make a subset of people in one state better off, and this can continue until minimum utility is achieved across the board.

 

[speculawyer]

Sarah Palin comments get borring. Ben Shapiro's idiocy? Never

So is that the conservative view . . . being a racist is OK as long as you don't do it publicly?

But seriously . . . how can much of conservatism thrive when much of it seems based on the principle of Step 1: Be a giant dick. Step 2: There is no step 2.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mah...atives-you-act-exactly-like-14-year-old-boys/

 

[speculawyer]

So will Grimm from New York's 11th be a pick-up? Is a guy with a 20 count indictment really gonna win?

 

[WayneMorse]

So will Grimm from New York's 11th be a pick-up? Is a guy with a 20 count indictment really gonna win?

His district went for Obama in 2012 I believe so it's very possible for a Dem pickup.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't view the question from the states' perspective. I also don't view the question from the perspective of those who want the power to compel others to behave in a way those others would rather not. Instead, I view it from the perspective of those others. For them, it is good that they are able to escape the jurisdiction of a government whose policies they dislike.

The freedom to leave is an important--though underappreciated--check on government power. And it's a check that's in our hands.

I get that in the abstract, but don't you see the real life consequences of this?
And that freedom is something that poor people can't really exercise and even middle class working people find it hard (it's not like you have job opening in all states for you to choose).
No, once again this is a freedom mostly rich people and corporations can use and it has a net negative impact on the country as a whole.

And the check is already in hour hands, we vote for the government, when people want lower taxes they can vote for a candidate that will do that (and they often do). Are you really arguing that we, the people have some sort of meaningful say in the way Toyota is making its business decisions?

I also don't view it from the perspective of a particular class. But it certainly seems beneficial to the Texas workers who will gain jobs from this move that Toyota is making the move.

And what about the Californian workers who would lose their jobs?

 

[benjipwns]

Sarah Palin comments get borring. Ben Shapiro's idiocy? Never

Weaksauce. He can do better than that.

The whole thing is even more fucking stupid since when a company relocates from one state to another, no net jobs are created.

Why the arbitrary standard at the national level? What about the people in a town a company moves into? Why should some other place get prior approval over them getting more jobs?

And what about the Californian workers who would lose their jobs?

So should the federal government prevent companies from ever moving across state lines? Maybe impose some kind of internal tariff on goods moving between states?

 

[empty vessel]

I don't view the question from the states' perspective. I also don't view the question from the perspective of those who want the power to compel others to behave in a way those others would rather not. Instead, I view it from the perspective of those others. For them, it is good that they are able to escape the jurisdiction of a government whose policies they dislike.

You view it from the perspective of capitalists. I agree that federalism is good for capitalists. It is bad for people who earn paychecks.

The freedom to leave is an important--though underappreciated--check on government power. And it's a check that's in our hands.

First, this has nothing to do with federalism. The freedom to move capital does not depend upon the existence of political subdivision. A federal or non-federal government may or may not permit capital movement. Second, even if it did have anything to do with federalism, I do not believe the freedom to move capital to be a check on government power that should be permitted, because of capital's importance to society. Capital should be considered a public asset and to whatever extent it is not the society's strong interest in it must nevertheless be recognized. Thus, a society may permit capital movement, but it should always have the prerogative to deny capital movement and regulate it as necessary to serve the public interest. Third, the power of moving capital in a capitalist society is not in fact in our hands. It is only in the hands of capitalists (which over 99% of people are not).

Nationally uniform laws governing business would clearly be ideal. There is no reason to use artificial constructs like political divisions to make American workers compete against each other for access to capital.

I also don't view it from the perspective of a particular class. But it certainly seems beneficial to the Texas workers who will gain jobs from this move that Toyota is making the move.

You just said above that you view it from the perspective of capitalists, so you are contradicting yourself. While this may be marginally beneficial to Texas workers who will gain jobs, it is a net detriment to the country, because regulations will be lessened. Anybody who cares about the country as a whole would oppose policy that makes us collectively worse off, even if the losses and gains are unevenly distributed. So what we have here is California loses X, Texas gains Y, and the US as a whole loses Z.

While it makes sense for a business to look at the different options and take the best one for its owners, it would be better to set a national policy applicable to all and allow substantive competition where it counts--in production. Seeking and obtaining competitive edges through tax and regulatory policy is not what is meant by competition in capitalist doctrine.

 

[benjipwns]

Nationally uniform laws governing business would clearly be ideal. There is no reason to use artificial constructs like political divisions to make American workers compete against each other for access to capital.

There is no reason to use artificial constructs like political divisions to make all workers compete against each other for access to capital.

 

[Chichikov]

So should the federal government prevent companies from ever moving across state lines? Maybe impose some kind of internal tariff on goods moving between states?

I didn't say that, I said that regardless of your general view of federalism, this zero-sum race to bottom is a negative side-effect of it.

As to what to do, at the very least, I think states should not try to poach jobs from other states, it's a non-productive activity for the country as a whole.

 

[empty vessel]

There is no reason to use artificial constructs like political divisions to make all workers compete against each other for access to capital.

That's an argument against capitalism or nation states. But as long as both exist, further subdividing nation states so as to require interstate competition only needlessly exacerbates that problem. The United States is a political unit, and so we should not needlessly pit its political subdivisions against each other. Uniform policy allows businesses to compete in meaningful metrics related to the actual production of goods and services as opposed to competing for favorable policy from political subdivisions. The latter is not competition within the meaning of capitalist economics.

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

I didn't say that, I said that regardless of your general view of federalism, this zero-sum race to bottom is a negative side-effect of it.

As to what to do, at the very least, I think states should not try to poach jobs from other states, it's a non-productive activity for the country as a whole.

umm, you do realize that's the job of elected officials right? to provide jobs

 

[benjipwns]

As to what to do, at the very least, I think states should not try to poach jobs from other states, it's a non-productive activity for the country as a whole.

But what if it's an unintentional side effect of state policy? Assume the argument that Texas has created a better business climate than California, what do you do to prevent companies from moving from the latter to the former?

The United States is a political unit, and so we should not needlessly pit its political subdivisions against each other. Uniform policy allows businesses to compete in meaningful metrics related to the actual production of goods and services as opposed to competing for favorable policy from political subdivisions. The latter is not competition within the meaning of capitalist economics.

Why does the federal government get to declare itself a "political unit" and thus be entitled to set uniform policy but not the states? Or the UN?

 

[empty vessel]

umm, you do realize that's the job of elected officials right? to provide jobs

State governments cannot really do anything to provide jobs; that is why they simply try to bribe businesses existing in other states. The overall economy can be meaningfully regulated only by the monetary sovereign who controls the amount and flow of currency-denominated net financial assets that exist. It can create jobs by using its power to create money to increase aggregate demand in the society. State governments lack that power.

Why does the federal government get to declare itself a "political unit" and thus be entitled to set uniform policy but not the states? Or the UN?

I have no objection to a world government, provided it were democratic. (The UN is not democratic.) I would be fine with a globally uniform business policy. The federal government is the largest democratic political unit that Americans can currently look to. So that's why the US. State governments are subdivisions of the US, so that's why not the states.

 

[benjipwns]

State governments cannot really do anything to provide jobs; that is why they simply try to bribe businesses existing in other states. The overall economy can be meaningfully regulated only by the monetary sovereign who controls the amount and flow of currency-denominated net financial assets that exist. It can create jobs by using its power to create money to increase aggregate demand in the society. State governments lack that power.

So you're saying we should let them have that power? Or take it away from the Fed and give it to the World Bank or IMF or something?

 

[Chichikov]

umm, you do realize that's the job of elected officials right? to provide jobs

I thought the government can't create jobs.
But more seriously, I don't think it's they have to do it at all costs, specifically if the cost is hurting America as a whole.

But what if it's an unintentional side effect of state policy? Assume the argument that Texas has created a better business climate than California, what do you do to prevent companies from moving from the latter to the former?

But it isn't.
Rick Perry specifically target Californian business, both directly and through a pretty big public ad campaign, and he's doing it to New York state.

 

[sc0la]

If I had to guess he would indicate that states be forbidden from incentivizing business to relocate from one to another with race to the bottom tax breaks.